I can't believe DU wants a pug to win the Massachusetts senate race...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I can't believe DU wants a pug to win the Massachusetts senate race...

...and, fortunately, I don't have to. DU thinks no such thing.

Just because one or two people say something doesn't mean that "DU thinks" x, y, z.

I think 95% is pretty good considering that nationally the earth being flat probably gets more than 5%:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7479382

[BklnDem75]

1. You're referring to a poll you made an hour ago?

I'm sure many will vote honestly there. :eyes:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. Do you think people post *more* honestly?

There are a pile of accusation threads broadly attributing a pro-Brown attitude to categories like "progressives" or "liberals."

But that particular attitude is quite rare on DU... unless one is deducing its existence, or even just wishing it to be so.

The constant claims of what some class of un-named people think, as opposed to what they actually say and do, and postulation of invisible classes of enemy are malignant.

[BklnDem75]

5. People certainly post more honestly than they vote

I determine a person's feelings on their posting history. The past week was more than enough to determine the direction of many here at DU. Making a poll, after the fact, that reads the opposite does not erase that history no matter how much you want it to. There are two threads on the first page right now that speaks volumes on how far people are willing to go for their ideals. But you knew that. Otherwise, why make a poll?

[spoony]

15. There's more anonymity in poll votes

So I don't know what you can point to to show that people are less apt to be honest there as opposed to posting, where everyone can see where you stand.

[BklnDem75]

18. The poll being anonymous is the whole point.

What's to keep the people making the claims from agreeing with the OP?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KittyWampus]

2. since you are referencing your poll threads, I'd point to my two posts indicating it means nothing

in terms of some loudmouth DU'ers doing everything they can to demoralize and denigrate Democrats.

[elocs]

3. You've determined this...how? How many at DU want this?

So then how can it be, "DU wants..."? A few posters do not DU make.

[niceypoo]

7. Read beyond the caption

The OP agrees with you

[niceypoo]

6. It is called the, 'Fallacy of the hasty generalization'

Many here fall for it.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Pugs are beautiful! What's your beef with them? I love pugs, and I have one!

[KansDem]

20. But do you really think a dog can do a better job in the Senate?

Oh, wait...nevermind!

[Nancy Boy]

10. ...

The idea that high criticism equals the desire too see the party fail and be replaced is wrong, simply wrong. You don't wait until long after you've fallen down to look at yourself, your failures, and your mistakes to create a solution. You do it at the time you start seeing something isn't going right so you can correct it right then, avoiding mistakes.

It isn't Obama-hating to demand he do more right from the get-go, because anyone can always do more at any time, as many have pointed out several times to critics of Obama. It isn't wishful thinking that the Republicans win MA and in November if you criticize what they're doing and how they're going about it while they're in a sensitive position.

Because she looks to be losing, she's done something wrong, obviously. You can't simply keep your mouth shut, keep promoting what has been going on before, and hope things come out your way, next week, next month, or ten years down the road.

[racaulk]

12. Fantastic post!

:applause:

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Hansel]

17. It might not be the desire, but it will be the effect.

It is impossible to govern with an opposition party who's entire object is to stop any positive legislation from happening. It is the fault of a handful of blue dogs and the Republicans that Obama cannot get as strong of legislation through that he wants. So put the focus there. Because all of the bitching about Obama and the Dems is having the exact opposite of the effect desired.

The Republicans are getting almost no criticism for their obstruction of the governing and both the Left and Right are criticizing Obama and the Democrats. So what impact would that possibly on the uninformed? Oh yeah, "well at least the Republicans don't seem as bad as Obama and his gang. Let's vote for them."

Had even a small amount of the energy the left has used to criticize Obama had been used to go after Republicans and blue dogs for filibustering absolutely everything, then maybe Obama could have gotten more of what we wanted. Instead, the constant criticism has only served to make the Republicans look innocent in this f*cking mess they created and obstruct the efforts to fix.

The high criticism, and might I add, the nonobjective high criticism is backfiring and backfiring big time. But by all means, carry on. Because history tells us attacking the people on your side always makes them seem like stronger candidates.

[Nancy Boy]

19. ....

There's the point. It's the Blue Dogs and Republicans fault. Why not ask, what is Obama not doing to nullify their actions? To claim that Obama isn't getting what he wants because of X or Y is to claim Obama's innocence, that he has no problems to work on.

It is also a false assumption to equate criticism of Obama from the Left (or, to plainly state it, from the Progressive Left) to that of the criticisms from the Republicans. They are different and aim to achieve different goals. To ignore or mistake it is, possibly, to play into the Republican's hands. They want their concerns to be justified and if it is made to look like even the Left share their concerns, then they win. Perhaps it is better, then, for us not to tell the Progressives to stop talking, to be quiet, to not criticize or "work against" the Democrats in Congress and the White House.

It's easy to tell people to stop complaining and do something instead. To support instead of point out faults and weaknesses. But a weakness ignored is a weakness strengthened; we're destined to fall if we act like tyrants among ourselves.

[TexasObserver]

11. Recommend. Indeed. Only the meme is GOPesque.

The meme that DU wants a Republican to win is only the latest straw man constructed by those who think it is their job to attack critics of the president in the party.

[Aramchek]

13. do you think those who are cheering on Brown have a place on DU?

[spoony]

14. Yep, just 8 people.

And who knows who they are or what their motivations are. All this bellyaching about how progressives want to piss on the party and dishonour Kennedy's memory and blah blah, it's all rubbish.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HughMoran]

21. Anonymous polls are meaningless and you know it. I can easily read the volume of hate spewing forth

This is not good logic at all AND YOU KNOW IT!

What is your agenda to think that poll means anything?

Oh, and 8 people here did vote for Brown - even knowing that it could get them banned (get it - many others didn't vote or picked Coakley in order NOT to be BANNED).

Silly posts.

[BklnDem75]

23. Exactly my point

The fact that the poll was made in the first place tells more truth than the results are trying to imply.

[HughMoran]

24. Exactly. "What are you trying to hide" (in plain sight)?

It's such simple psychology - how did the O/P miss it?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

27. You are arguing like a fanatic

You "know" the truth and no possible measurement of reality could dissuade you from what you "know"

It is claimed that vast numbers of DUers want Brown to win.

Ask them and they say they do not want Brown to win. But that's just what they would say...

So, of course, if the poll said 95% want Brown to win then you would argue that DU is actually strongly for Coakley.

Except you wouldn't.

You opinion is based on what you desperately want to believe and any evidence of any sort will be twisted to meet your psychological agenda.

The defects in DU polls are built into the system. They are problematic, but not so problematic that they render DU polling less informative than the rantings of deranged, agenda-driven people who think they are psychic.

[niceypoo]

33. I could not have thunk it better

Take a load of Hasty Generalization, toss lightly with some Ad Hominem attacks, add a pinch of irrationality, and serve with a cold shit sandwich (and don't forget the lobster bib.)

[spoony]

25. So asking people a direct question carries less weight

than what biased observers construe various comments to mean, thus concluding how posters may (or in your psychic response, wanted to) answer to that question? Interesting theory.

[HughMoran]

26. Dozens of observers have noted the same thing

"The dog that was hit was the one that yelped"

:think:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

28. Revelation is always more powerful than evidence.

These folks have been granted psychic insights into the minds of their enemies, and that settles it.

[BklnDem75]

29. An even more interesting theory...

Is how you assume everyone answers online polls honestly. Wasn't it you that was trying to make the argument that online polls was just as reliable as phone polls? Why yes! It was you!

[Hello_Kitty]

22. I'm seeing well-founded observations that Coakley might lose.

Which is not the same as saying one wishes she'd lose.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

30. But Pugs are cute!

[donheld]

31. DU does not want a pug anything

Yes some fools here do, but you make it sound like DU in general think that. :banghead:

[salguine]

32. Maybe this is kind of off subject, but I really wish people would stop

referring to Republicans as "pugs" "Repugs", "Repukes" "Pukes", "Rethugs" and all such in their posts. It's childish and juvenile name-calling, and it makes people doing it look childish and juvenile. Neither does it elevate the discourse at all. Good God, isn't calling them "Republicans" insulting enough?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

35. I actually agree with you

I can't stand the constant nick-naming and code-heavy and slur-happy language here.

I make an exception for "pug," however, because it is necessary to have a very short term for such a common word/concept/category.

There is no other three or four letter term for Republicans that is so widely understood.

Rep, pub, 'R'... they don't work. And the internet needs some abreviations... there are only so many characters available in a headline.

(If it had fit I would have said Republican.)

[davidpdx]

34. With that low of a number of votes

Who says they aren't freepers who snuck who lurck around and registered just to disrupt? The answer is we don't know for sure, but it IS possible.

Give me an hour and I could create enough email accounts and registrations to do it. (not saying I would)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

36. Yes, RW trolls are come here to show support for Coakley

Think it through... disruptors are registering here to say they support Coakley?

Sorry, makes no sense.

Voting in a DU poll that you support the Democratic candidate is not particularly disruptive... except to a few folks who are desperate to claim, for whatever reason, that "DU wants Brown to win."

[JVS]

38. +1

[davidpdx]

39. No, I meant the votes for Brown

But I guess I didn't make it clear enough.

[LWolf]

37. Please provide a link with evidence that "DU wants a pug to win"

the Massachusetts senate race.

Or don't spin it like it isn't.